Sandro Hawke: +1 Uli ("deprecated" may make Lite users think they have to change something)

Jeremy Carroll: agree with Uli in that the deprecation advice to OWL Lite users is "do nothing"

Uli Sattler: ...but saying that, if they want to keep working with their ontologies, they should look into the profiles would be useful as well

Ivan Herman: in other areas, deprecation means that, although it is still valid, in a later version we may make in invalid. Didn't find examples in W3C docs. But it has this aspect. Thus I am in favour of what Alan says

Jeff Pan: [Does this mean OWL Lite will be one of the OWL 2 profiles?]

Issue 71

Jeremy Carroll: the paper mentioned in the issue was maybe too complicated

Jeremy Carroll: there are linguist theries encoded in a language tag system in a bizarre fashion (?)

Jeremy Carroll: We need access to the language tag in the model theory, which is possible neither in OWL DL nor OWL Full

Jeremy Carroll: suggestion is to provide a property in OWL with a model-theoretic treatement that allows access to tags

Jeremy Carroll: different approach is to provide a way of creating data ranges of those plain literals that have language tags that are of a particular form: a rdf:type owl:PlainLiterals; a owl:withLanguageTag "en-US"^^xsd:language .

Boris Motik: Interesting issue we may want to address. Two questions. First: for a bunch of objects, you have values connected via properties. If you want to single out all english literals, this can be done with facets

Carsten Lutz: Two confusing points in the proposal. 1. Value space is algebraic reals, should be reals. 2. In owl 1.0 strings are required, but the proposal does not make clear whether they would be required in OWL 2, whether the binary comparisons on them are required, and how exactly they would be interpreted.